The views contained here may not represent the views of 24hGold, its affiliates or advertisers.

24hGold.com makes no representation, warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of the information (including, editorials, news, prices, statistics, analyses) provided through its service. In no event shall 24hgold.com, its affiliates or advertisers be liable to any person for any decision made or action taken in reliance upon the information provided herein.

Any copying, reproduction and/or redistribution of any of the documents, data, content or materials contained on or within this website, without the express written consent of 24hGold.com, is strictly prohibited.

There are many varieties of libertarianism alive in the world today,
but Rothbardianism remains the center of its
intellectual gravity, its primary muse and conscience, its strategic and
moral core, and the focal point of debate even when its name is not
acknowledged. The reason is that Murray Rothbard
was the creator of modern libertarianism, a political-ideological system that
proposes a once-and-for-all escape from the trappings of left and right and
their central plans for how state power should be used. Libertarianism is the
radical alternative that says state power is unworkable and immoral.

"Mr. Libertarian," Murray N. Rothbard
was called, and "The State's Greatest Living Enemy." He remains so.
Yes, he had many predecessors from whom he drew: the whole of the
classical-liberal tradition, the Austrian economists, the American antiwar
tradition, and the natural-rights tradition. But it was he who put all these
pieces together into a unified system that seems implausible at first but
inevitable once it has been defined and defended by Rothbard.
The individual pieces of the system are straightforward (self-ownership,
strict property rights, free markets, anti-state in every conceivable
respect) but the implications are earthshaking. Once you are exposed to the
complete picture – and For a New Liberty has been the leading
means of exposure for more than a quarter of a century – you cannot
forget it. It becomes the indispensable lens through which we can see events
in the real world with the greatest possible clarity.

This book more than any other explains why Rothbard
seems to grow in stature every year (his influence has vastly risen since his
death) and why Rothbardianism has so many enemies
on the left, right, and center. Quite simply, the science of liberty that he
brought into clear relief is as thrilling in the hope it creates for a free
world as it is unforgiving of error. Its logical and moral consistency,
together with its empirical explanatory muscle, represents a threat to any
intellectual vision that sets out to use the state to refashion the world
according to some pre-programmed plan. And to the same extent it impresses
the reader with a hopeful vision of what might be.

Rothbard set out to
write this book soon after he got a call from Tom Mandel, an editor at
Macmillan who had seen an op-ed by Rothbard in the New
York Times that appeared in the spring of 1971. It was the only
commission Rothbard ever received from a commercial
publishing house. Looking at the original manuscript, which is so consistent
in its typeface and almost complete after its first draft, it does seem that
it was a nearly effortless joy for him to write. It is seamless, unrelenting,
and energetic.

The historical context illustrates a point often overlooked: modern
libertarianism was born not in reaction to socialism or leftism –
though it is certainly anti-leftist (as the term is commonly understood) and
antisocialist. Rather, libertarianism in the American historical context came
into being in response to the statism of
conservatism and its selective celebration of a conservative-style central
planning. American conservatives may not adore the welfare state or excessive
business regulation but they appreciate power exercised in the name of
nationalism, warfarism, "pro-family"
policies, and invasion of personal liberty and privacy. In the post-LBJ
period of American history, it has been Republican presidents
more than Democratic ones who have been responsible for the largest
expansions of executive and judicial power. It was to defend a pure liberty
against the compromises and corruptions of conservatism – beginning
with Nixon but continuing with Reagan and the Bush presidencies – that
inspired the birth of Rothbardian political
economy.

It is also striking how Rothbard chose to
pull no punches in his argument. Other intellectuals on the receiving end of
such an invitation might have tended to water down the argument to make it
more palatable. Why, for example, make a case for statelessness or anarchism
when a case for limited government might bring more people into the movement?
Why condemn U.S. imperialism when doing so can only limit the book's appeal
to anti-Soviet conservatives who might otherwise appreciate the free-market
bent? Why go into such depth about privatizing courts and roads and water
when doing so might risk alienating people? Why enter into the sticky area of
regulation of consumption and of personal morality – and do it with
such disorienting consistency – when it would have surely drawn a
larger audience to leave it out? And why go into such detail about monetary
affairs and central banking and the like when a watered-down case for free
enterprise would have pleased so many Chamber-of-Commerce conservatives?

But trimming and compromising for the sake of the times or the
audience was just not his way. He knew that he had a
once-in-a-lifetime chance to present the full package of libertarianism in all
its glory, and he was not about to pass it up. And thus do we read here: not
just a case for cutting government but eliminating it altogether, not just an
argument for assigning property rights but for deferring to the market even
on questions of contract enforcement, and not just a case for cutting welfare
but for banishing the entire welfare-warfare state.

Whereas other attempts to make a libertarian case, both before and
after this book, might typically call for transitional or half measures, or
be willing to concede as much as possible to statists, that is not what we
get from Murray. Not for him such schemes as school vouchers or the
privatization of government programs that should not exist at all. Instead,
he presents and follows through with the full-blown and fully bracing vision
of what liberty can be. This is why so many other similar attempts to write
the Libertarian Manifesto have not stood the test of time, and yet this book
remains in high demand.

Similarly, there have been many books on libertarianism in the
intervening years that have covered philosophy alone, politics alone,
economics alone, or history alone. Those that have put all these subjects
together have usually been collections by various authors. Rothbard alone had mastery in all fields that permitted
him to write an integrated manifesto – one that has never been
displaced. And yet his approach is typically self-effacing: he constantly
points to other writers and intellectuals of the past and his own generation.
In addition, some introductions of this sort are written to give the reader
an easier passage into a difficult book, but that is not the case here. He
never talks down to his readers but always with clarity. Rothbard
speaks for himself. I'll spare the reader an enumeration of my favorite
parts, or speculations on what passages Rothbard
might have clarified if he had a chance to put out a new edition. The reader
will discover on his or her own that every page exudes energy and passion,
that the logic of his argument is impossibly compelling, and that the
intellectual fire that inspired this work burns as bright now as it did all
those years ago.

The book is still regarded as "dangerous" precisely because,
once the exposure to Rothbardianism takes place, no
other book on politics, economics, or sociology can be read the same way
again. What was once a commercial phenomenon has truly become a classical
statement that I predict will be read for generations to come.

I write to comment to the "Jim C Team" of writers who compile working papers stating "almost believable alternatives" (twisted logic) to the brilliantly independent thoughts expressed by writers on this site. Your Doubt-Inducing Psy-Ops are becoming not Read more

Mark Twain once consented to critique the writings of a young man and said this: "Sir, your work is both good and original. However, the good part is not original and the original is not good."

And that sums up the work of Murray Rothbard. His ideas are not original, nor are they good/valid/workable. The idea of the state, any state, having no authority over an individual was articulated long before Rothbard by the American Lysander Spooner (THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY) and the German Max Stirner (THE EGO AND ITS OWN).

To say that Rothbard's ideas are not good, is to say they are not only unworkable but highly destructive to individual life. There is no room here to offer a philsophical refutation but only to observe that, once allowing the logic of secession from government authority by whim, one must then allow for NO authority whatsoever. This leaves anarchy as the result -- everyman against his fellow with no objective authority or law to settle disputes or rally support for the common defense. This is not to say, as Thomas Jefferson believed, that individuals may not revolt against a tyrannical state -- but only to create a state where individual rights are defended by that state and whose powers are limited to that goal.

That Rothbard's ideas are popular is not in question: many have been seduced, the most notable and vocal being Ron Paul. Yet popularity or influence is no criteria of merit -- think Marx (DAS KAPITAL) or Hitler (MEIN KAMPF).

I write to comment to the "Jim C Team" of writers who compile working papers stating "almost believable alternatives" (twisted logic) to the brilliantly independent thoughts expressed by writers on this site. Your Doubt-Inducing Psy-Ops are becoming noteworthy. The addition of a few "new contributors" using the same M O impressed me as a nice "cover the bases" dodge.